Stardust Global Ventures

Everybody is all up in arms over facebook places. Why? Confusion!

Let’s answer a couple of questions those of you who have never used location based services may have.

First of all if you’re using your computer, facebook places will not be told where you are or what you are doing. It doesn’t work that way.

Second, if you don’t use facebook on your phone you have no worries. Facebook places can’t possibly know with no input where you are or what you are doing.

Third, even if you do use facebook on your mobile device you still have to access the places tab and tell it where you are. For instance, when I am out and about in the world using facebook on my phone I have to open up the application and then manually open places and then type in where I am and it has to recognize that as a place or I have to tell it that where I am is the location of, for example, Lorenzo’s pizza. If I don’t tell it anything, it has no knowledge. GPS still has to be activated and linked with facebook in order for it to have any idea where you are.

The hype over facebook not being trusted is a whole other issue. I definitely understand there is little reason to trust facebook because they’ve certainly not done anything to garner trust. They’ve allowed your information to be public in spite of the steps you may believe you have taken to keep your privacy locked down. But location based services really are not smart. At least not right now. All of them, facebook included give you controls and you then set the privacy to whatever you choose. If you have facebook and don’t use it on your mobile device you have not one thing to fear. You don’t have to mess with your settings at all and it won’t matter one iota. You are as safe as you were before Places came to be.

EDIT: My friend Dameone Welch-Abernathy pointed out the one thing I forgot to mention. If you’re still really freaked out about all this, the one thing that guarantees you are not checked in is if you go to your settings and change other peoples ability to check you in where they are. Seriously though unless you have really skanky friends, they probably wouldn’t if they knew you didn’t want them too.

There’s a fundamental issue with AT&T that’s been nagging at me more and more lately. Let me set the stage

First, consider the brouhaha over the Google/Verizon watering down of net neutrality with their joint proposal. You’ve read about it, and I’m not going to pick a link to share. There are simply too many to choose from. It’s the proposal that says “we” want halfway net neutrality (subliminal message has to be “so we can control things and make a ton of money.”). This idea is counter to Google’s past positions, but it’s right in line with what any reasonable thinking person in the industry would expect from Verizon. It’s even predictable based on Verizon’s public statements the past few years.

Now AT&T weighs in on the AT&T Public Policy Blog with Wireless is Different. If you haven’t read it, put your hip waders on and click the link. Read this specious pile of steaming excrement for yourself. It’s the responsible thing to do.

When I read it, I groaned, but read on friend. As they say in the Ronco commercials – but wait, there’s more.

Sunday John Battelle (@johnbattelle) posted AT&T Weighs In: Trust Us, We Know What You Want. John’s one of the truly brilliant folks at identifying babbletalk and does a great job of dissecting AT&T’s specious statement. Again, go read for yourself. You won’t need the hipwaders for John’s post. If you’re an AT&T customer, you might check your blood pressure first.

I’m just bringing some sideline thoughts in as someone who spent a good many years in the Bell System and working for AT&T. I left in 1996. Yes, I left of my own volition. Even eagerly. But in 17 years I saw a lot of the reality that is AT&T.

An observation from someone who lived a career with AT&T:

From the Carterphone decision in ’68, to divestiture in ’83-’84 to TA-96 and beyond, AT&T has never offered a different reason; never used a stronger argument; never changed the song. AT&T’s DNA remains what it has been since American Telephone & Telegraph was  founded in 1886.

Wikipedia is an interesting, accurate (if incomplete) resource for the early creation of what remains the AT&T DNA.

A national monopoly
As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status. In 1907, AT&T president Theodore Vail made it known that he was pursuing a goal of “One Policy, One System, Universal Service.”

Early in the AT&T formation, avarice and power plays became a central theme, leading to the KingsBury Commitment in 1913. While this agreement has been positioned as placement of Interstate Commerce Commission oversight to ensure no more independent companies were swallowed by the beast, in effect, it granted AT&T authorized monopoly status for telephony services in the US. AT&T asserted control over the local and long distance telephone market. Coincidentally, the ICC approved 271 of 274 acquisitions by this voracious company from 1921 to 1934.

To say that AT&T was built with a feeling of entitlement and right to own telecommunications services in the US is an understatement. This sense of ownership runs deep. To the bone. It isn’t in the people. It isn’t in the culture of today. It’s in the DNA of the organization. It’s a genetic strand woven into the fiber of every work process, business plan, idea and proposal. It’s not out  of malice. It simply is what it is.

If we look at the defenses (or arguments against) the Carterphone decision, divestiture, TA-96, and countless other issues, AT&T’s response has always been “we know what you want”. Always. It is, in my thirty years experience in the industry, the only argument AT&T knows how to make. Win, lose or draw, it is their position and always will be.

Let me share a cartoon, and a story.

As someone who worked as an engineer inside AT&T, this was the culture. Art mimics life, and cartoons mimic reality. (Doubt that? Dilbert got his start in life as reality inside that same Bell System).

The corporate ecosystem that is AT&T believes to its core, that it knows better than customers what to do. over 124 years, the sense of entitlement to telecommunications services has been so deeply ingrained in the culture that it permeates every nook and cranny.

If Google is young and prideful, battling with young and dumb proclamations that it will “do no evil,” AT&T is an aging victim of its own prion disease. The corporate culture has folded in on itself so many times that healthy organisims (ideas) cannot replicate. A new idea that enters the ecosystem its prion form simply induces it to convert to the rogue form, which in AT&T, is the norm today.

Just as prions must be denatured to induce sterility and allow for healthy proteins growth, AT&T requires some sort of shock treatment to ever become a healthy organism. For prion disease, we’d use bleach, caustic soda, and pressurized steam treatment in an autoclave, but that may not be enough. As far as I can tell renaturization of a denatured prion has never been accomplished.

In short, death follows.

I’m not a doctor, and certainly my analogy isn’t perfect. On the other hand, I’m a senior manager and enterprise architect with a lifetime of experience in the industry. This company we’re talking about is one diseased animal to be sure. And by the way, AT&T’s comments have absolutely zero to do with the issue of net neutrality in any way shape or form. They’re simply saying we should feed the beast.

The old bait and switch.

This morning I was pointed to a link at Sysomos Blog . They ask the question, “Is Twitter really about lots of followers?” Fascinating since they don’t answer that question, they simply suppose it is, and explain how to make your twitter stream appealing to the masses.

Personally I vacillate a bit, but unless you are working for a company, building a company, trying to reach ‘the masses’, so to speak, I don’t happen to think attempting to reach millions of people and have a million+ followers on twitter is a goal. And, this article, while not totally off the mark, certainly begs the question ‘why’? Why is it important to be interesting enough to garner a bunch of new followers? Why does it matter at all how many followers you have?

Think for a minute about the Kevin Costner movie, Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will come, or if you tweet authentically people will follow – but it’s all about your goal, isn’t it? Does it matter for you if you don’t meet the industry ‘standard’ for number of followers? Why are we all expected to race toward a number that someone has set out there as important to reach, especially if we aren’t marketers. Or are we?

Are we marketers?

To be fair, all of us to a certain extent are marketers. We may not be marketing a big name product but we do market ourselves. The struggle, though, is that every second person on twitter is telling us how they have the answer to getting more followers, or some other ridiculous thing, and we get confused.

Let’s think about what really matters to us.

Are you a mouthpiece for a company, either your own or someone else’s? Is your goal to achieve a large audience so that your message is heard and possibly the reason someone makes a decision? If so then your numbers mean something different than the average person’s. Still, we need to remember there is a difference between broadcasting and engaging. This distinction is really getting muddied.

Dunbar’s Number

Well known anthropologist, Robin Dunbar theorized the number 150 as a mean number for processing ability in group size. The actual number will vary between 100 and 230, but 150 is what we can expect to be able to have in our network and still feel connection with. Others have posited this number is too low, with more recent numbers coming from a study of the US that suggests a mean of 230 with a high of 290.

Any way you slice it, there is a limit to cognition. These numbers are meant to provide explanation for how large a group can work in consort without conflict. In other words, there is a limit to the number of people we can positively impact.  There is no gaming the system, and there isn’t a great deal of difference in socio-economic/intelligence quotient.

What do you need to know?

Let’s assume you have a large network and it is necessary. What you need to know is that the larger your network, the less percentage of engagement there will be. As it grows you will become more like a megaphone and less like a conversationalist. The reciprocation will be lost and just as in the past with movie star idol worship, you will stop being a person and become a commodity. Own it, or get out of it but know what you’re getting when you go for those big counts. Don’t get me wrong, you will still have conversations but the actual numbers of people you will become personally involved with and stay personally involved with will diminish.

What’s your goal?

What you want may depend on what you’re doing. If you’re using twitter for business you have an entirely different goal than someone who is simply trying to stay connected. Understanding the difference is the key. Don’t be fooled. You are important and deserve a rich network full of people of your choosing. Whatever you do be considerate of those you connect with and keep your eye on the prize. The prize is what you want to gain from the involvement.

Sheryl wrote Of Weddings, Honeymoons and Authenticity, and described some of our life activity to perfection. Since moving to Walla Walla, real life and the priorities that come for us as a couple together have been a central part of our life. Her post made me think about something I’ve been considering for a while now too.

For friends and colleagues who’ve known me a while, you remember I oversaw the Realtime Unified Communications Community for four years. I’ve worked in the communications and networking industry for 30+ years, written several books and countless white papers and documents. I also produced hundreds of interviews, podcasts, videos and product evaluations. Some of you may wonder why you aren’t seeing that today. I thought I’d take a moment to explain.

First, my work with Realtime was a paid position that ended in December of 2008. It was a collaborative experiment with one of my publishers to explore how the Web 2.0 approach and social networking could be used by the publishing business. Realtime is quite successful and we have an ongoing great relationship. The business simply moved in another direction.

I’ve worked as both an employee and an independent contractor since 1980, balancing the challenges of both. Longtime friends know that I’ve focused on technical education, information security, and other networking concepts far beyond telecommunications, VoIP and unified communications. All of those interests remain, but today I focus heavily on enterprise architecture for global business.

Sure, I still consult with businesses of all sizes. I’m a big fan of local business and likely to do anything I can to help a business in my community flourish. That goes for my network too. My community isn’t confined to where I live. It includes my network online, which is quite global.

If I write about a business or product here, it isn’t just to write or keep fodder moving through the tubes. I don’t cut and paste press releases with a passing comment. Mostly, I delete them. They’re obsolete. I may write an occasional review of a product, service, book or some such because I’m interested and it caught my attention.

While I work entrenched in enterprise architecture (MPLS, QoS, Unified Communications, informatoin security architecture, network management, etc.), I don’t write a lot about that here. That work is focused, at the detail level, for my employer, CSC. When I talk about it here, I’ll be more focused on general trends, strategies, best practices and such. My highly technical focus is something that is paid for, and dedicated.

We’ll both always write about the things that excite us. We are after all geeks to the core. Mobile and wireless technologies – the elements of casual computing and hyperconnectivity are key elements of our life. They help simplify life, enabling us to focus on the things we hold dear.

I expect to write more personal things online. The things about our life, where we’re headed, things we’re doing that matter to us. I want to start writing more. I think this is a place where we both want to share ourselves in a complete and authentic way. Not just work, but as people.

As people, we’re focused on the human and humane aspects of networking. That means engaging with the people I’m connected to. It means sharing more than ideas and success stories or touting the latest hot technology. It means being human and real.

Like Sheryl said in her post, we want a future life on the beach. That’s going to take some time, work and planning. And I expect we’ll share our journey to get there. And then, our life from there.

Ken and I are married! Most of you probably assumed we already were, but we weren’t. Now we are.

We had a private ceremony at home overlooking the country club. Only family and closest friends in attendance. Ken had my son as his best man, and my pal JP from Quebec was my man of honor. Our photographer was my daughter and our videographer was my son’s girlfriend. All that was really left was to have my sister and the minister.  It was a wild and windy day, so while the ceremony was beautiful the wind wreaked havoc with decorations and wedding attire…mine! Still, it was special and wonderful and we were lucky to be blessed by a group of people who we love so very much to stand with us as we made the vows that mattered to us as well as the traditional and legal vows required by the state.

After our wedding we went off for our honeymoon. Our honeymoon was spectacular! We didn’t spend time online other than with our phones sharing pictures a bit. We focused on US and that is not something we do a lot. Oh, we have long talks and morning walks – quiet couple times but we always engage in some way with others. This was about us and I really appreciated the time to focus on our relationship and what matters for our life together.

We had such a great time wandering beaches, tidepools, small little towns and spending some time dreaming of a future on the beach in a more permanent way. It’s certainly not going to happen soon, but we came to the conclusion that as a couple our goal for later is to put together a plan that includes a life on the beach. We chose the beach as a honeymoon place because we both love it so much, but also because we both find so much calm and peace there.

Which brings me to the authenticity piece of this post. Lately I’ve noticed a lot of fickle behavior in the network. Not just my network but most networks. I want to set MY record straight so there isn’t any misunderstanding.

I follow some people who follow me, certainly not everyone. I choose to follow those who talk about things that are interesting to me. I don’t just arbitrarily follow people. I also don’t arbitrarily stop following people….except if they stop following me.

When someone stops following me I am forced to assess my stream. I admit that lately I’ve spent less time than typical tweeting and engaging. The above posting is probably a good example of why I’ve been a bit pulled away from my network. I was honoring others needs for privacy as well as our need to not be as over the top with our life happenings. We have always been really vocal about what we are doing and where we are. I felt compelled to be more private. Doing that created a problem for at least a few in my network. I’m sorry for that but I am not sorry why I was less engaged. My personal life must take precedence and for me it’s all in priorities.

Since moving to Walla Walla a year ago, I have been incredibly busy in my personal life. I have had to prioritize differently due to family needs etc. It was my son’s final year of high school. That all by itself has been a feat difficult to share. His life has been incredibly trying but this is the first year he hasn’t been undergoing treatments for his bone disorder. It has been a year full of watching and involvements. My last child is now an adult and headed to college. But as you can imagine, when you have a child with healthcare needs it’s never really finished and there are times when it is a bit overwhelming.

That’s the personal – but the not so personal, the stuff that feels personal even if it isn’t, is the part where people seem to just stop following and it correlates to a lack of involvement. I’m sorry if others don’t understand it but it’s also a testament to the fickleness that exists in this instant gratification world.

If you stop following me I will follow suit and stop following back. I don’t like that aspect of networking but if there isn’t reciprocity it seems pointless. I also would prefer to be involved in whatever way makes sense with people who understand my life isn’t all about making them happy. I’m more than what they see online. I have a full personal life that helps to make me who I am when I am online chattering away. I maintain a working relationship with individuals who may or may not be visible to the mainstream. I also have a private life that isn’t always shared.  I am authentic. If I share it’s something I find interesting or valuable. If I am quiet it’s because I am busy with something that must take precedence. It isn’t because I want to stop being involved with those in my network. I value everyone in my network. I follow them because of that. I stop following when the value is degraded somehow.

Thank you for all the good wishes on our recent marriage and if you’re still with me, thanks for your patience. Life is full of ups and downs and sometimes we have to step back and consider the value that we bring and pray others accept and understand we are human and evolving creatures. We can’t be all things to all people so good for you if you have decided I bring no value and turned me off for the betterment of your network. I am not offended, but I admit to thoughtfully considering why you have.

So to finish this post let me just  say Namaste! I wish you peace and prosperity, love and fulfillment.

Today is July 4th, 2010. Independence Day for those of you who are American or those who know anything about the history of the United States. Independence of what? Hm…that’s not really in debate, but this day and what it means has given me pause. Why? Because I’m about to embark on a new path that leaves me decidedly not independent, or does it? Let’s think about this.
Ken and I have been partnered for nearly 3 years. After these years of partnership we have finally decided to legalize ‘us’ as a couple. We have the marriage license, have a minister, our attendants/witnesses are ready to arrive for the big day. What about my 3 year long independence? Does a ceremony mean independence is no longer possible? Am I now to be absorbed or will I remain independent and a separate entity inside a partnership?  What is Independence?

Webster’s dictionary defines independence like this: 1 : the quality or state of being independent .

When you look up independent, here is what you get: 1 : not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one’s opinions or for guidance in conduct

Independence means I have the right and ability to choose what I stand for, what I’d like to do and who I’d like to do it with. Independence means my opinions will still be my own, I will not have to give up what I believe or think for anyone else.

What independence doesn’t mean is that the past no longer exists or that we relinquish all of who we were prior. Nor does it mean we become whole only inside the marriage. It simply provides a point of reference for what we stand for. Isn’t that what independence day in America is? I stand for me, I support my family and I support my soon to be husband. I remain Independent.

Happy Independence Day, friends and colleagues.

We hope you will join us in thought: Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 at 4pm pdt as we celebrate our Independence as a couple. Media will follow. (We are the first couple in technology after all)

Location based services (LBS) are all the rage today. From Foursquare to Gowalla to Yelp and more, the ability to check in, network and share tips via smartphones has captivated the attention of early adopters worldwide.

For those of us who live each day by our smartphones, that’s great, but we’re still in the minority.  There are far more standard mobile phones worldwide that smartphones. And while momentum is increasing, standard cell phones will continue to dominate the global market in many parts of the world.

Even with smartphones, there’s another aspect to location that technology can improve and automate – indoor positioning. A few months back Kevin Tofel wrote on GigaOm about a company that’s been working on patent pending location both indoors and underground to from 1-40 meters. As good as or better than GPS…for any cell phone – even those not equipped with GPS.

That’s right, with solid triangulation algorithms Aunt Suzy’s old flip phone can be located accurately too.

Here’s some info from a current press release:

GloPos, the developer of a breakthrough software-only positioning technology that makes all mobile phones location aware — outdoors, indoors, and even underground – has confirmed an indoor positioning accuracy of 7.7 to 12.5 meters in an independent test of its software conducted by VTT, The Technical Research Center of Finland.

Testing of the outdoor, indoor and underground accuracy of GloPos software was conducted by VTT at the Helsinki City Center on May 20, 2010. The GloPos application ran on a standard GSM-only mobile phone.

The stationary indoor and underground tests show that GloPos is capable of non-filtered average positioning accuracy of 15.1-23.9 meters. 75% of the measurements present an average position accuracy of 7.7-12.5 meters. With filtering, the indoor accuracy of GloPos technology is as good as the outdoor accuracy in an urban environment with a normal GPS embedded in mobile phones. When comparing with state-of-the-art cell positioning (Google Maps) the average accuracy is at least two times better and in some cases even ten times better (indoors).

“This successful test lays the groundwork for making all mobile phones location aware and opens up exciting, new opportunities in the personal navigation, social location, mobile search and personalized mobile advertising marketplaces,” said Mikael Vainio, CEO.

For those who remember Jaiku at its peak, location based on tower triangulation was becoming very important. It allowed a user created database of locations that Jaiku users with Nokia phones and the client software could then tag locations for future use.

That’s right, the model behind Foursquare and Gowalla was in live use with Jaiku long ago. The GloPos value really stems from honing accuracy for handsets that aren’t GPS-enabled. Remember those handsets are still SMS enabled. SMS is hugely popular and widely used.

We don’t talk about text a lot these days, but in 2008, in the US we sent 95.4 billion text messages. And we aren’t big text users. Many countries make optimum use of the lowest common denominator handset.

The truth is the Internet and value we get from it is really strongest when we support the the most basic end device – a standard cell phone.

GloPos potentially enables more granular location tagging that we see today in LBS. We can identify location not just to the store inside the mall, but which floor of the store someone is in.

GloPos makes location more important that ever in the mobile marketplace. it’s more ubiquitous than the other technologies we use today.

GloPos technology requires only a cellular network to make all mobile phones location aware. No additional hardware like GPS or W-LAN is required on a mobile device for achieving accurate positioning.

GloPos’ patent-pending, self learning algorithms can calculate an accurate position fix even in places where no W-LAN access points are available or no GPS can be used (i.e. in shopping malls, subways, underground parking, airports, sports arenas, exhibition centers). GloPos works wherever cellular network coverage is available.

GloPos Technology does not consume any extra battery life while operating as cell information is already being used to stay connected. GloPos enables longer device usage versus GPS and W-LAN, allowing battery power to be used for more advanced applications and driving more powerful processors.

We’re really just beginning to uncover the power and the value of location. Companies like GloPos are going to keep emerging as they bring new strengths to what we can do with technology we carry in our hands already.

My blogging here has been much lighter than in the past. It isn’t because I’ve lost interest in VoIP, unified communications or mobility. Theyve simply become smaller facets of what I’ve been working on and thinking about. I’ve become deeply entrenched in the realities and vision of real next generation networks in the large enterprise space.

With deference and utmost respect for many friends and colleagues in the entrepreneurial space, much of the innovation we see today really targets the SMB (small-medium business) space rather than large enterprise. This is true for a number of reasons. SMB and enterprise business share a number of issues that differ only in scale. Enterprise business has unique requirements beyond scale. These might relate to requirements from regulatory agencies, business sectors, shareholders, Wall Street and global business realities. They are  very different animals, and this fact is often overlooked but high tech innovators. (See my recent post Skype in the Enterprise? Not without major changes for one example.)

For example, small businesses are looking at Google Voice, Skype and other VoIP services for their use. Large enterprise tends to look at carrier class services differently. Most enterprises source telecom and network services selectively from a small set of providers. Some will select more, some fewer. This is to reduce risk and force price competition among the providers. Other companies focus intently on the “one throat to choke” approach, insisting on a single provider

Enterprise 2.0 (E20) is a very popular buzz phrase today. I see the current state of E20 and what we call cloud computing as being very transitional to a more interesting destination from the large enterprise perspective. Let’s touch on where we’re at and where we’re headed beyond E20.

Today the enterprise looks for things like:

• Cost models that are flexible, break out all the different service elements and deliver consolidated billing.
• Shifting from per seat and per port costs to more demand or usage oriented billing.
• Tiered SLAs are becoming increasingly important.
• Network based, or hosted in the cloud based services are on the rise, particularly in the realms of VoIP, unified communications and collaboration (UCC) and call centers. Hosted in the cloud doesn’t necessarily mean by a service provider. Enterprise businesses are leading with private cloud hosting delivered by the enterprise today. It’s a bit movement.

Cloud based service really fall into three distinct categories today.

• Public cloud owned by the carrier with access via the Internet
• Community cloud hosted or managed by the carrier, shared by a consortium of organizations. This is typically accessed via the Internet or via VPN.
• Private cloud hosted by either a carrier or the enterprise itself.

Enterprise business really wants a hybrid of many clouds for load balancing, traffic bursting that mix these three models.

Software as a Service (SaaS) is a leading driver of cloud initiatives today. Whether is moving sales force automation (SFA), enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) to the cloud, there’s really one fundamental technology that enables this – virtualization. Server virtualization is big business. What we have today is maturation of virtualization technologies. The industry spins it as cloud computing but this is really only the first steps to a fully enabled cloud.

Communications as a Service (CaaS) is a growing trend. Leveraging VoIP, video and collaboration services (UCC), CaaS brings in call centers, conferencing, messaging and fixed mobile convergence. CaaS is an infant in the enterprise today. The best in breed solutions are built, run and maintained by the enterprise, for the enterprise. These are not solution any carrier can deliver as cloud based services today.

The next generation is something the carriers should be frightened of. It changes their business completely. I’ve long argued that Telco 2.0 was something of an oxymoron. Here’s one reason I believe this.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is a pretty new concept to be spoken aloud. It’s something enterprise architects have talked about for years behind closed doors. Now it’s something these architects are pushing toward providers. In a short time, it will become the de facto operating model telcos and other providers will have to operate under to win business. This will be a critical extinction event for many providers.

In the future that I’m loathe to call Enterprise 3.0, IaaS will be delivered by the real next generation carrier-class provider. It will bring some major differentiators that create an obvious gap from todays model.

• Carriers will provide more options on how services are billed and paid for. The idea of a fixed cost circuit will die, replaced with unbilled capacity (bandwidth) billed against usage, with some minimal billing requirement.
  • Enterprise organizations will routinely deploy 5-10 Gigabit capacity connections to support high demand as streaming apps grow more widespread. They can’t do that today because the billing for these circuits 24X7 simply precludes it as an option.
• Carrier neutrality will be a reality. This means carriers will have to interoperate, provide on-demand capabilities, and deliver on their SLAs like never before.
  • This environment will give the enterprise access circuits for the last mile, with flexible, on demand switching at the provider edge. If the carrier in use suffers a major outage, switching to an alternate carrier will be simple and seamless, even transparent.
  • This neutrality will make carrier services much like power brokerage in the energy sector today. Large businesses may even shift traffic day-to-day based on available pricing from carriers. Transport will truly become a utility.
• More enterprises will tackle co-management and self provisioning of the enterprise network and cloud. That’s right. More DIY in the enterprise because only the large enterprise truly understands and can meet their service delivery requirements.

These are some of the thing I’m working on lately. They are coming. In some cases they’re here in pilots, prototypes and trials. If you think the tech sector has been interesting so far, hang on for an exciting ride ahead in the enterprise space.

The last few days I’ve seen several posts talking abut how Skype is now going to run rampant through the enterprise world. While some posts were from people I know and respect, those folks are simply off the mark.

I know we love Skype. I love Skype. For personal use. But as an enterprise architect with thirty years experience (in the large enterprise), it’s not going in my network. And ongoing discussions with my colleagues in network and security fields confirm Skype isn’t showing up in their networks either. The common response remains “not on my watch.”

The popular opinion that Skype will take over the enterprise is widely held, but I’d call it an urban myth. Popular because we love Skype. Popular because we love free. The notion is particularly popular among entrepreneurs and startup visionaries. In their business it does make good sense. But they aren’t designing, operating, maintaining or securing an enterprise business network. Many of them have never worked in that environment, and simply don’t grasp the ramifications.

There isn’t one single reason. This isn’t a problem that one change in Skype will fix.

First and foremost, the heritage of Skype will always be Kazaa. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) of every enterprise is going to remember that for a long time. It isn’t just P2P, it’s the DNA Skype was formed from. We’re three generations of CISOs away from embracing the core of Skype and forgetting the heritage.

Second, there are zero business controls. None. For enterprise business to adopt Skype, the whole supernode architecture will have to change dramatically. Clients will have to be pointed at a specific supernode or set of supernodes. And the client can’t ever be promoted or escalated into a supernode. In essence, the supernode of today will have to be more like a PBX with configuration and management controls that don’t exist today. And the client will have to be revamped to provide controls that also don’t exist.

Third, the encryption deployed in Skype positively precludes it from enterprise adoption. Key escrow doesn’t exist. The algorithm is a black box. Enterprise business can’t buy a magic black box. HIPAA, SOX, ITAR, and a host of other regulations require audit and configuration controls that simply don’t exist. Some organization must either have and document or submit to third party key management systems that Skype  doesn’t use, support, or from all I’ve seen, even acknowledge.

There are several more sound business reasons, but I won’t prattle on endlessly. I think I’ve made my point.

Skype is a renegade telco. As consumers, we love that. We’re ebullient about it. But praise gone wild sounds like technologists deluding themselves into thinking an enterprise that isn’t using Skype is being foolhardy. The opposite is true. An enterprise business has to protect shareholder value and make sound business choices about technology.

There are two phrases that come to mind. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL) and you get what you pay for. Both are applicable to enterprise adoption of Skype.

Enterprise business simply can’t afford Skype, at free, or at any price in its current design. The enterprise value proposition simply isn’t there, no matter how much many of my friends and colleagues might wish it.

Don’t mistake the enterprise passing on Skype for being backwards or slighting VoIP. VoIP is big and growing in the enterprise, although not quite as quickly as industry pundits proclaim. But it’s growing globally and will continue to accelerate in deployment.

Skype,  on the other hand, is at least 4-5 technology generations from being the right fit for enterprise business. And to get there will require Skype hiring the right people, and listening to the real-world requirements of the enterprise from people who design, operate, maintain and secure those large networks. I haven’t heard anyone in that space say they’ve had any discussions with Skype. And none of the leading architects, designers and developers of real enterprise scale voice services have been in the “just moved to Skype” news that I’ve seen.

I’ll preface this by stating the obvious. I’ve yet to drink the koolaid, but I do have an opinion.

I’ve been reading all the glowing warm fuzzies from many colleagues and friends proclaiming Skype’s new 3G call support as perhaps the greatest innovation from mankind since Jonas Salk gave us a vaccine for polio. Or something akin to that.

I’m more critical. I’m also more grounded in enterprise business than most of the folks I’ve read effusive praise from. Then again, Skype over WiFi from a mobile is barely, mildly interesting, if nearly useless IMHO. I’ve made two mobile Skype test calls since switching to the iPhone a few months ago. They were ok. They were phone calls. They worked. I have no reason to make more.

I’ll grant that allowing Skype to run in multitasking mode on the iPhone could make it mildly more interesting. Again, mildly IMHO. A Skype phone that has to be front and center in a mobile computer (what the iPhone really is) is an impediment to productivity, not an aid.

But, I’m working to keep an open mind here. I really am. So people who buy the most expensive, top-of-the-line phone, and pay for unlimited data, can’t afford enough minutes to make a phone call? Or do they call a high volume of minutes overseas? I never run over the minutes I pay for. The rollover bank is full of more. But I can understand the need for Skype for international calling.

What I don’t understand is what percentage of Skype users see this as so necessary. What percentage has to have this capability over 3G because they’re never at their computers? Sure, I know a few business people who live on international travel and would find this quite helpful. That they’re in a position to afford the calls at going rates doesn’t matter. They want them free on an all-you-can-eat data plan. Ok, I get that.

What percentage of Skype’s user base is this service aimed at? Not my jet-setter colleagues and friends who live in frequent flier clubs and spend their time hopping from conference to dinner to conference to meetup. I’m talking about everyman – the user that made Skype the behemoth it believes itself to be.

I just looked at Skype and according to my client, there are currently 12,665,667 people online. 12 million people, and I’m guessing that a miniscule percentage of those people are mobile. And a miniscule percentage need 3g HD Voice on a cell phone.

So where’s the beef?

Oh wait, I know my friends and colleagues will jump up to say “but have you heard it?” Did you hear that amazing HD quality?  On that I have two thoughts. One backed by facts and the reality of the telecom world. The other is just my opinion.

It’s a fact that callers won’t pay for audio quality. Ask Sprint how those “You can hear a pin drop” ads are doing. I can tell you the pin drop on stage in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City is far more effective and impressive. If callers cared about call quality, the PSTN with it’s wired landlines wouldn’t be in a death spiral as users go for portability, mobility and ubiquity. We won’t buy audio quality and we’ve proven that with 140 years of  telecommunications in North American. Buying patterns don’t lie.

As for my opinion, let me ask a question – how do you spend your time on the phone? Mine is spent in two ways. I spend a bit of time on phone calls with people I know – customers, colleagues, family and friends. None of us ever have issue with the fidelity of a call. I also spend an inordinate amount of time on conference calls.

If you’re in conference call hell, do you give a rabbit’s fart about getting better audio quality? Be honest. If you’re on a computer, this 3g smokescreen isn’t a factor. You’re doing email and other work while you’re on the call. And if you’re mobile, you’re driving, or doing something else as well.

Again, where’s the beef? Improved audio quality during conference calls is somewhat  akin to my dentist playing nicer music during a root canal. I’d prefer to change the experience in a more compelling way.

Sure you can tell me the SILK codec is wonderful and we’re early adopters and this is a taste of the future. Maybe, but I don’t think it’s a 3G future. I think it’s perhaps 4G version 2.0 at best before most callers will notice or care.

On the other hand, what problem is it solving? More 3G footprint? Better coverage? Reduced cost? Options? I don’t think so.

Skype 3G HD voice calling is a solution without a problem. It’s hype too far ahead of the curve. it’s a proof of concept without a market. And to me, that makes it just a tad boring.

Skype has been an innovator and disruptor. Note I said “has been” in the past tense. This isn’t terribly innovative. It isn’t the least bit disruptive. It is the sound of a bell ringing. It’s the bell heralding Skype as Telco 2.0. Not AT&T. Not Verizon. Not Qwest. Not BT. Not Telstra. Skype is the first to become Telco 2.0.

That may be a good thing, and it may not. Your mileage may vary. But don’t mistake it for innovative disruption of an industry that’s still ripe for real reinvention. And real reinvention will send all the carriers scurrying for safe ground.

Currently I am playing with the 64 GB 3G version of the iPad I won at the RSA Conference in San Francisco thanks to Tripwire. The features are very nice. The screen is crystal clear, although a little hard to see in the sunlight. It works well on wireless for videos and web browsing. Unfortunately for me, the AT&T coverage in my area is not 3G so not worth the 2 offered plans currently available. But… “How do you get around this” you ask. That is simple. Turn your phone into a wireless access point through various means of apps, hacking, or whatever. I used an app on my HTC Touch Pro 2 carried by US Cellular (3G locally now, ) and now have 3G access to the iPad via wireless through my phone. The best part is that it’s not really tethering so you don’t need the associated plan.

So with that the iPad is great. In my area I don’t need the 3G so I might sell it and get two of the standard wireless ones cause my wife loves it too. The apps, the games, and the possibilities, all right there at your multi-touch finger tips.

Until now I didn’t like Apple. Not because I grew up on PC’s. No. Just because I didn’t know them as well as I know PC’s. But after 2 weeks with the iPad I’m definitely a fan of the iPad and it’s possibilities with future releases. I hope to do more testing and possible a run with the AT&T 3G as it is available in a town about 30 miles away form me.

Just a quicky to consider the latest twitter bug as referenced on Mashable.

What do you think would happen if our numbers ceased to show, permanently? What would the so-called guru’s base their expertise on? Better yet, how would they set themselves apart? What would happen to the social media we have a love/hate relationship with?

I’d really love to find out. Hm….I wonder.

Just got through reading one of Robert Scoble’s opinion pieces on privacy. He makes some good points but more than that, it made me consider just what it is that most of us really mean when we talk about privacy. Have a look at his post and then let’s talk. http://scobleizer.com/2010/05/08/much-ado-about-privacy-on-facebook-are-we-protesting-too-much/

I don’t necessarily always agree with Robert but he definitely makes me think. I don’t think a locked down website is what most people want from Facebook. I know that’s not what I want. It is what everyone says they want, but maybe we should ask ourselves to really consider that. I think we want something else entirely.

You all know I’m female. Like it or not females are addressed by a certain segment of the world population differently than males are. While it doesn’t happen often, I have certainly had my share of requests for friendship by people who send a message telling me I’m ‘hot’ or asking for my IM so they can contact me directly. Usually they want me to use Yahoo, which sort of tells me something must be in yahoo I am not privy to because while I have a yahoo account for Flickr, I do not use yahoo.

So with these experiences, and a long term account on Facebook as well as a long term life online, it caused me to really think about what I would like on the web regarding privacy.

I want control of who has the ability to communicate with me. That’s all. I want people to treat their online neighbors as they would their next door neighbors and not expect they have the right to write derogatory things on their ‘walls’ or send mail that is inappropriate. I don’t want strange men or women to publicly hit on me, I do not want them to come to my place of business, ie email, linked in messages, blog, or wherever else i may be conducting business to ‘call me out’ like a high school bully. I expect to be treated on my public spaces the way I would were we in the same physical space. With dignity and respect. I think typing has emboldened us for some reason and I think we should step back and really consider when we all got the right to be mean and insensitive to one another.

I have recently had to block someone on Facebook. I blocked them because they were sending messages I don’t appreciate receiving. It’s not that I care if they see my profile, I only choose to not receive messages from them because they apparently struggle with the common courtesy I talked about above.

Since I’m writing this on my iPhone, I’ll end now. But think about it. Is it really privacy or simply some measure of control that has been missing from online life?

A while back Tom Foremski wrote a post called – Dirty Little Secrets: Social Media Is Terrible at Promoting Products.

I have thought about that and he’s right. Social media promotes social media, or to take it deeper, Social media is what companies use to promote themselves. But no one is successfully promoting a product with social media. What social media is doing is enabling communication.

Are Brands social? I don’t think so. We pay attention to brands because of cultivated credibility. People brands may be social, but typically by the time they reach recognizable brand status they are not nearly as social because they are too busy and bombarded, so people brands find the other people like them, and are social there. It no longer matters that they aren’t social because they have built enough credibility that WOM takes over and becomes all that matters. Even bad word of mouth rarely impacts them. Most treat that as sour grapes.

As a people brand grows, does social shifting happen where they no longer have to engage because the people who built and helped them now do all the ‘social’ for them? Is it asynchronous – where you, the brand, no longer have to be involved? I believe this to be the case.

Is the assumption that by having 100k + followers that you have then achieved such a state of brand identity you are no longer required to engage? How then do we maintain credibility? We don’t expect the products to jump off the market shelves at us as we walk through a store, why then should a people brand expect and get unconditional devotion? Do they now have whuffie, or karma to spare and other people perpetuate their brand for us?

I’d like to not confuse a Brand with Engagement. Engagement happens between people looking for something, be it friendship, products, or information, and those providing what we’re looking for. The best engagers are not the brands we already identify. Those brands have all become part of the old broadcast media mold. No, the best engagers are people who haven’t yet arrived. Hmmm, I wonder if that’s an argument for high turnover in social media? I think I’ll save that for another post.

Who of you have not heard some major brand tell you, “We listen and we respond”, only to ask a question and either get nothing in response, or get the canned response that they will respond as soon as possible but due to the massive number of requests it may take a while? Is this what we want from engagement? Can we even call this engagement? I think this is LAME!

What we want from engagement is a front facing contact, someone who is representative of the brand, not the brand, who will take the time to help us out. We don’t want someone identified as a brand because as soon as we identify a person as a brand, they have reached a status that defeats the purpose of the front facing person. A brand simply doesn’t have enough to give to that many people. Certainly not the engagement piece.

Brian Solis recently wrote the book, Engage: The complete guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. I haven’t personally read this book, in part because I have not had an opportunity, but there is another piece to it. I don’t think Brian engages well, except with those in his immediate universe, and I find it incredibly difficult to get excited enough to buy a book that is supposed to teach engagement from someone who is now his own brand. Certainly Brian is successful, you really can’t argue that, but why is he successful when he doesn’t eat his own dogfood? I believe Brian is successful because he has reached that brand status that many wish to reach, and yet so few ever truly achieve. But reaching that status now means he is incapable of being a person and truly engaging the way most social media people engage – which illustrates my point.

This isn’t a piece on Brian, and I’d rather not make it about him which is why I’m only linking to his book, not to him on a personal level. He is merely an example of the big picture I’m trying to paint, certainly not the only example, just a good one.

Once upon a time most Brands paid attention, asking questions about how they could do better, or what they should do differently, or even how to make your experience better. Once they get to the royalty stage, the only thing that shakes a brand up is a need to combat bad press, in other words the need to defend themselves.

You are certainly capable of making up your own mind about all this. I just had some thoughts, and where better to put them than here?

On a final note I’ll end with something I saw on twitter just moments before posting this. Practice what you preach, better yet, don’t preach. Just practice!

Makes sense, don’t you think? If you aren’t living it, walking the walk so to speak, at some point people will notice.

Technorati Tags: Tom Foremski, Sheryl Breuker, Brian Solis, Personal Brand, Engagement,

Every parent, teacher, educator and administrator in the world should watch this video. Twice. Then they should have to take a test.

This is the single most compelling talk from the recent 140Conf.

Our kids ARE the foundation that we’re building the world on. We don’t need drones and workers. We need thinkers and doers. Achievers and explorers. We need to teach our children to create, collaborate, build and network.

We need to do it now!

Don’t just shrug this off. Watch it. Share it. Spread the word. And teach your children well. Then teach help mentor three other children.